JAI SHREE LALLA Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No.2609/2014 (condonation of delay)

(2.) The petitioner/landlady by this petition impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 30.8.2013 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/landlady for withdrawing her statement made to the court for disposing of the eviction petition as compromised and also for withdrawing the jointly signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Ex.P-1 dated 19.12.2011 on the basis of which the parties had recorded their statements in court for disposing of the eviction petition as compromised. By the impugned order, in view of the agreed MOU and the settlement recorded in the court on 19.12.2011, the Additional Rent Controller has disposed of the bonafide necessity eviction petition as compromised under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in terms of the MOU dated 19.12.2011, Ex.P1.

(3.) Before I turn to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to state that the petitioner/landlady does not dispute that she is a signatory to the MOU dated 19.12.2011. This MOU is signed on each page and is of three pages. Petitioner/landlady also does not dispute that she appeared in the court and got her statement recorded that she has signed the MOU and that she has amicably settled the dispute with the respondent/tenant. It is also not the case of petitioner/landlady that she was in any manner misled by her Advocate or that there was any collusion between her Advocate and the respondent/tenant and his Advocate. The only ground which was given for withdrawing from the agreed compromise was that the petitioner/landlady was under a "misunderstanding".